Relocation and moving with a child in Colorado Relocation and moving with a child in Colorado

In the initial allocation of parental responsibilities, under Spahmer v. Gullette, the court has no authority to order a parent to live in a particular place. The court takes each parent’s intended residence as a fact and allocates parenting time and decision-making based on where each parent will actually live. If you are still in the original case and planning a move, the court is not deciding whether you may go. It is deciding what the parenting arrangement looks like given that you are going, which makes the quality of your proposed long-distance plan the whole case.

Once a parenting order exists, a majority-time parent who intends a move that substantially changes geographical ties between the child and other parent must provide the other parent written notice as soon as practicable, including the location, the reason, and a proposed revised parenting plan, under C.R.S. 14-10-129. Contested relocations then run on In re Marriage of Ciesluk: no presumption for or against the move, no burden-shifting between parents. Both parents share equally the burden of demonstrating what serves the child’s best interests, and the court weighs the statutory relocation factors: the reasons for the move and for the opposition, the history and quality of each relationship, educational opportunities in each location, presence of extended family, advantages of the child remaining with the primary caregiver, anticipated impact on the child, and whether a reasonable parenting time schedule can preserve the relationship across distance.

Specifics, on both sides, delivered fast, because Colorado gives relocation motions priority hearing treatment. The relocating parent needs a complete, child-centered plan: the documented reason, the school, the housing, the extended family or support network, a proposed schedule with extended breaks and travel logistics, and real cost allocations. The opposing parent needs the concrete story of the child’s ties, the current schedule’s success shown in calendar detail, and the specific erosion distance would cause. In a no-presumption state, the parent who brings a plan beats the parent who brings a position, in either direction.

A parent who relocates in violation of notice obligations or an existing order invites remedial orders, make-up time, and a credibility deficit that colors the rest of the case. Interstate moves layer on UCCJEA jurisdiction questions, which deserve their own page and will get one. If a move happened without warning and the child is gone, act immediately; delay reads as acquiescence and lets the new location become the status quo.